How are the strongest national teams doing? And how are VAR, regulatory changes, stadiums and the disputed hydration break working? Here’s a thoughtful guide after the first week of the World Cup.
Seven days in the blender of a World Cup that already seems bulimic due to the amount of things that have happened and which in reality has almost not even started. Twenty-four matches played in a week, 75 goals scored (average of 3.12 considering that Germany scored 7 together in Curaçao), some surprises, many controversies and some indisputable positive signs. Once the first day of the group stage has passed the mark, it’s time for report cards and partial assessments.
Teams, regulatory changes, stadiums and… hydration breaks: what is going well and what is not in this World Cup? As the days pass, the majority’s attention will shift from logistical and color issues to the field and so it is good to make a clarification: not all the big teams entered the tournament on the right foot but this means nothing. Or almost. It is useless to remember how in 2022 in Qatar the then World Champion team (Argentina) lost on their debut against Saudi Arabia and that the same happened to Spain in 2010. To avoid inconveniencing the hard-suffering Vigo group for Italy in Spain ’82. It’s true that in most cases a good ending corresponds to a good start, but as Ancelotti said with great wisdom, a World Cup doesn’t win or lose in the first match.
World Cup, first week: the report cards of the big names
Here, therefore, are the report cards of the big names who took to the field for the first ninety minutes of a journey which in everyone’s intentions should be as long as possible. Promoted theEngland by Tuchel (rated 9) who impressed in his debut against one Croatia declining (score 5): the signature was given by the usual immense man Harry Kane (vote 9 – for the penalty that was first missed and then scored), but it is impressive just to mention the names of those who were left at home for a tactical project that perhaps has less appeal than usual but seems very solid.
Promoted theArgentina (vote 8) by Scaloni who overwhelmed Algeria and the maximum votes go to Leo Messi (rated 10 like the shirt number) for the quality of his impact and for the emotions conveyed in the first lap of his last world dance. Good there France (rating 7.5) than if it were the one from the first half with the Senegal (strong, rating 6.5) should worry Deschamps but it is certainly more similar to that of the recovery he triggered Mbappé (8.5 rating) and confirmed because the Blues are racing to win.
Impossible to judge Germany (SV vote) who trained with Curaçao. Rejected Brazil by Ancelotti (rated 5, reviewable) who was put down in the game by a Morocco (score 7) up to the top 5-6 teams in the class. Postponed Spain (rated 5.5) which will go down in history for having granted a night of glory to Cape Verde and the hero goalkeeper Vozinha – jumped from 50 thousand to 13 million followers on Instagram in a few days – but did so by preserving the best, starting with Lamine Yamal, and having to play against a bus parked in front of the opponent’s goal. Also bad Portugal (rating 5.5), linked to the decadent Cristiano Ronaldo (rated 5, estimated) who lost the long-distance comparison with Messi.
World Cup between time outs, stadiums and VAR: the report card for the first week
The rest travels between great excellences and enormous disappointments. On the XL formula of the World Cup wanted by Infantino it will be good to return to bowls stilleven if the truth is that 24 matches in a week are a lot, almost a third of those played in the entire series in Qatar just four years ago (64) and basically they were of no use given that when we reach the last round of the first phase at 72, the format foresees that only 16 national teams will return home and another 32 will move on. If not friendly, almost.
Other things, however, have already left a recognizable trace. While waiting for official data, which FIFA has strangely not published in the sea of information it releases daily, promoted with honors (score 10) on new regulation which eliminated unnecessary waste of time at the time of throw-ins or fake injuries on the pitch (medical interventions disappeared). The feeling is that the issue of effective time of at least 60 minutes has been resolved, Collina will let us know the data in hand…
Well the Var expanded in skills (vote 8) with jurisprudence also on warnings whether they are second or for mistaken identity as well as on corners awarded by mistake. Postponed Automatic SAOT with the intervention of Artificial Intelligence (rated 5.5) because there have been a couple of recent failures and it is a risk that cannot be afforded. Full promotion for stadiums (vote 10) and it’s nothing new: fantastic, futuristic even if not all of them were built in the last ten years. After all, even full for one public frame enthusiastic (vote 8) despite the prices from a thousand and one nights (score 4) imposed by FIFA and defended by Infantino in the face of controversy.
Listening to the players, there are some problems quality of the playing fields (score 6): Rabiot heavily criticized the one at the MetLife Stadium in New York and one could even get over it if it weren’t for the fact that the final will be played on that field on July 19th. Hopefully without Trump raising the cup (in this case, vote 0). A round of applause television product postponed all over the world (score 9): the live broadcast is enriched with a thousand details, technology helps, but the core business which is the match with its progress has been respected up to now.
The now much hated one was rejected without appeal hydration break (vote 2 to go down). Even the public in the stands began to boo him openly, it is a money machine set up by FIFA to monetize advertising revenue by selling off the very structure of football which is designed to be fluid. An indecent and dangerous carnival if the idea of copying it even came to Europe and, if it doesn’t happen, we will have to thank Ceferin and the various presidents of the leagues (including ours) who will not be attracted by the charm of the money.
